What I liked
- Interactive
- Discussions
- Learn by doing
- The game element, teamwork, learning by experience
- A lot of fun!
- Clear explanation
- Fun factor is high!
- Very practical and gives you indirect by example a message to improve and visualise workflow
- Good presentation
- Practical, fun experience of work in progress
- Hands-on
- Well time-boxed
- Good explanation relating observations to Kanban practices
- Entertainment and teaching great stuff
- Limit WIP
- Well thought out, gioves a lot of possibilities to point out things
- Well-prepared
- Fun
- Good explanations
- A great illustration of Kanban at work
- Fun!!
- Good to re-distribute groups => get out of comfort zone
- Excellently handled technical problems at start
- Timeboxing was perfect
- Great game: lots of fun and insight. Keep spreading it
- Good method. Clear conclusion
- Frogs are nice :-)
- Well-structured game with lots of insights
- Experiential
- Insightful
To make it perfect
- Might be a coincidence, but WIP did not change throughput (granularity of tasks?)
- Brief explanation of Kanban would be good
- Louder beep (joke!)
- More illustration of tips and tricks, results, symptoims... Use of scrumboard for WIP control. There wasn't enough time at the end for this
- Needs tweaking in some areas:
- Hand out XP levels so all teams start similarly
- Something more constraining with WIP or penalties for too much WIP
- Try out more variations with the WIP, to show the effects (Now the WIP had little effect on our team)
- Maybe start with a very short theoretical intro of Kanban
- It would be nice to have just a littlem more time to discuss strategy, lessons learned etc.
- Avoid that 4 experts can sit at one table
- Better to have more than 4 people on each table => more difficult to arrange yourselves
- Explain words on a poster that's visible all the time => Kanban, WIP, bottleneck
- Give us explicitly some time to discuss how we will handle the next round and the time to fill in WIP limits
- Reorganise across team instead of within
- It's not very applicable in our development team
- More people per table. Minimum 6?
- More feecback on results
|